Reading the bible all the way through

[GeneralD]

Hi everyone, hope you are well.

I have finially at long last descided to read the bible in it's entirerty, until this point, I have pretty much glemed from others, or looked at certain parts for whatever reason. It is my hope to get a better understanding of the faith, I, suppose rejected, but wish to give a fairer shot now.

I already have a few questions I was hoping to get some help with.

Who is ''they''? When God says, let us create man in our image? Who is he talking about? I thought God is God and knowone is like him? I did assume the angels who I believe are called the sons of God (if someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it btw). Though surely that cant be right?

More over though, I have a question to do with mans life. After they eat of the tree, God says:

''Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever''.

So, I take it God didnt intend for man to live forever? If mans intent was to eventually return to the ground, then where exactly does the idea of the soul come in, if man is said to come from the ground, and doesnt this seem to cause issues for the supposed afterlife?

me thinks I will have a bunch more questions as I progress, but these would be good to get a better understanding of.

oh and I think there was a quote along the lines of, my spirit wont stay with men forever, for they are mortal.

Much appreciated

Martyn

[Gman]

Hi everyone, hope you are well.

I have finially at long last descided to read the bible in it's entirerty, until this point, I have pretty much glemed from others, or looked at certain parts for whatever reason. It is my hope to get a better understanding of the faith, I, suppose rejected, but wish to give a fairer shot now.

I already have a few questions I was hoping to get some help with.

Who is ''they''? When God says, let us create man in our image? Who is he talking about? I thought God is God and knowone is like him? I did assume the angels who I believe are called the sons of God (if someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it btw). Though surely that cant be right?

More likely refers to the Trinity...Although some references could point to angels as well..

More over though, I have a question to do with mans life. After they eat of the tree, God says:

''Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever''.

So, I take it God didnt intend for man to live forever? If mans intent was to eventually return to the ground, then where exactly does the idea of the soul come in, if man is said to come from the ground, and doesnt this seem to cause issues for the supposed afterlife?

me thinks I will have a bunch more questions as I progress, but these would be good to get a better understanding of.

oh and I think there was a quote along the lines of, my spirit wont stay with men forever, for they are mortal.

Much appreciated

Martyn

Best described here http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ortal.html
or here: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

Sorry for the short answers...

[jlay]

I don't recommend reading the bible through for getting a deeper understanding.

I do recommend reading the bible THOROUGH. Scripture immersion is the best to gain understanding. If you are going to read through, I would accompany that with a in depth saturation study as well.

[Jac3510]

Well, General, you jumped right into the deep end, didn't you?

I'll suggest an answer to each of your three questions, but first, a piece of unsolicited advice, if I may. Rather than focusing reading the entire Bible through in a year, focus on reading the narrative portions of the Bible. The reason is that the Bible, fundamentally, is a book of history. More specifically, it is a history of Israel and their relationship with God. All the theology in the book comes out of that, not vice versa. If, then, you understand the story, you will be better able to answer some of the types of questions you are asking now.

This is important, because what will happen otherwise is you will get to Ex. 20 and all the law literature you find there. Leviticus is next, with nothing but laws. Numbers is half law, half narrative, and Deuteronomy is the same. In short, it's about as interesting reading as your cable TV contract. It's certainly very, very important, and you need, eventually, to understand it. But it's not a story. In fact, the law portions presuppose a knowledge of the story, so it makes much more sense for you to learn that part now.

The same will happen with the Wisdom books (Job-SoS) and the Prophets (Isaiah-Malachi, less Daniel). All of those have very little narrative. Each of the presupposes the general story. Here, then, is the breakdown I would suggest, if you just want to get right at the biblical story as a whole:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis
Exodus 1:1-20:21; 23:20-24:15; 32-34
Numbers 1:1-19, 47-54; 9; 10:11-13, 29-36; 11-14; 15:32-36; 16-17; 20:1-26:4, 63-65; 27; 31:1-31; 32:1-34:15; 36
Deuteronomy 34
Joshua - Esther
Daniel 1-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a genearl outline you can follow that is based on the main characters you will meet:

Antediluvian Age (“Before the Flood”): Gen. 1-11
Adam
Noah

Patriarchal Age: Gen. 12-50
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob (Israel)
Joseph

Journey to the Promised Land: Ex. 1-Deut. 34
Moses

Pre-Monarchial Kingdom: Josh. 1-7:17
Joshua
Various judges -> Samuel

The Monarchy (Pre-Exilic Kingdom): 1 Sam 8-2 Chron. 36
Saul
David
Solomon
Various kings (Northern Kingdom/Israel and Southern Kingdom/Judah)

The Exile: Daniel and various prophets
Daniel

Post-Exilic Kingdom: Ezra-Esther
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
John the Baptist
Jesus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I would recomment one last breakdown to keep in mind. The theology of the Bible, as noted above, comes from its narrative. The narrative is guided by the establishment, expansion, and fulfillment of a series of covenants. It is very helpful to have a good overview of these covenants so you know what to look for. They are:

Genesis 1 - Universal Kingship - God king over all creation (note hb. Elohim, trans. “God” = “Strong One”, emphasizing God's omnipotence)

Genesis 2 - Relationtional Kingship - God king through humanity (note hb. Yahweh, trans. “LORD” = “I am”, emphasizing God's personalism)

Genesis 3 - The Fall; “Universal Kingdom” and “Relational Kingdom” broken. Gen. 3:15, “the first giving of the Gospel” = God's desire to restore the kingdoms.

Gen 12:1-3; 15:17-21; 17:1-8 - Abrahamic Covenant: God promises to make a nation on earth through Abraham through which He will restore kingdoms.

Deut 29:1-30:10 - Palestinian Covenant: God promises Israel Palestine, blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience

Exodus 19-24 - Mosaic (Sinaitic Covenant): Temporary and conditional covenant commonly referred to as “the Law.”

2 Sam 7:1-13 - Davidic Covenant: God promises David that his line would always rule over Israel; see also 1 Chron. 17:11-14 and 2 Chron. 6:16.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - New Covenant: God promises Israel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a perfect relationship with Him. Inaugurated by Christ in Luke 22:20, will be finally fulfilled in the future earthly Kingdom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK - I know you didn't ask for all that, and I'll save you the boredom of reading my summation of the whole thing. This should be enough to give you a good background if you want to read through the Bible. You can, obviously, read it cover-to-cover if you like, but I'm just saying that it has been my experience that you won't gain as much that way as you would following the method I've suggested here.

So - I'm going to post this now. Next post, I'll answer your specific questions.

[zoegirl]

Nice summary JAc!!

Yeah, I remember starting great and then hit....the dreaded Leviticus ad Deuteronomy...and when one is young (middle school at that time) it can really present a struggle!!

[Jac3510]

OK, General. In my last post, I suggested what I think to be a good outline for getting a grasp on the totality of Scripture without trying to trudge through the entire thing and getting terribly lost along the way. Let me now, in much better conscience, try to answer your specific questions.

Who is ''they''? When God says, let us create man in our image? Who is he talking about? I thought God is God and knowone is like him? I did assume the angels who I believe are called the sons of God (if someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it btw). Though surely that cant be right?

This is usually answered by looking at what is called "the plural of majesty." It was very common for ancient near-eastern kings (and even some today, as well), to refer to themselves in the plural. I was surprised to learn this past week, actually, that this practice was continued even in England as recently as 500 years ago.

Bottom line, kings referred to themselves as "we" and "our" to emphasize their own majesty. Moses, then, is simply using a literary device that was very, very common in his own day, to emphasize the sovereignty of God.

As an aside, some see the Trinity here. I don't, but I think we can safely say that the seeds of the Trinity are certainly there. But that doctrine doesn't require a singular or plural usage of the pronoun. Trinitarians rightly refer to God as "He" rather than "they," so we shouldn't expect anything less than that from Moses.

So, I take it God didnt intend for man to live forever?

Immortality is an interesting idea that can be nuanced in several ways. Let me answer this by looking at a different "problem." Consider this question: Why didn't a perfect God just create a perfect world?

The answer: He couldn't. It isn't that God isn't powerful enough to. It's that it is logically impossible. This is why: for a thing to be perfect, it must not lack anything. Put differently, if a thing lacks anything, it is not perfect. A perfect world, then, would not lack anything. But if the world lacked nothing, then it would be able to exist independently of God. The fact that the world cannot exist independently of God means that it lacks the ability to do so (called aseity in theology). Can God, then, create a world independent of Himself? He cannot, because then there would be TWO totally perfect beings, lacking in nothing. But this brings out another problem: if two things were completely and totally complete and perfect--if they had all things in themselves--then what would we mean by saying, "There are two different things"? In fact, when we say things are different, we say that they differ by something. This one has A, that one does not. That one has B, this one does not. But if two things had ALL things, then they would both have ALL things. As such, neither would have anything the other did not have, and thus, neither would be different by anything at all. And if two things are not different by anything, then they are simply the same thing.

Thus, to ask God to create a perfect world is to ask Him to create Himself. But that is obviously absurd. So it is evident that God cannot create anything that exists independly of Himself, which we simply perceive to be true on its face.

Let's take that idea to your question. Did God intend for man to live forever? Yes, He did, but God did NOT intend for man to live forever independently of Himself. What is life? Ultimately, it is that which is in God. What is the difference in a rock and you? You are living, and it is not. But what makes a thing alive? Genesis 2 tells us that God breathed the Spirit of Life into Adam. All life, then, comes from God. It is impossible, then, for anything to be alive if it is apart from God, just as it is impossible for a flower to be alive if it is plucked from the ground, or a leaf from a tree.

Apart from God, then, Man would die. God never intended for Man to die, but it was and is a possibility.

What, then, of the Tree of Life (ToL)? If life comes from God, then how could a person eat of the tree and have life in them? Let's answer that by looking at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE). And in looking at that, let's start with this observation: a Good God cannot create anything evil. Like begets like, so goodness can never give rise, naturally, to evil. Thus, God could not nor would create something inherently evil. They means that the TKGE wasn't itself evil. I think that Geerhardus Vos has it right in his Biblical Theology when he says that Adam was going to come to understand good vs. evil no matter what, and that no matter what, the TKGE would take him to it. Let me explain.

We have a tendancy to think of the TKGE as something that held this innate power that Adam had access to once he ate of it, and that power was a bad power. But let me suggest a different approach. Look at it, instead, as a fork in the road. Adam would face it no matter what. He would either obey God and avoid its fruit, or he would disobey God and partake of its fruit. Either way, Adam would do something relative to the TKGE. If he obeyed God, he would learn good and evil by experiencing Goodness. As it stands, he disobeyed God, and learned evil.

Here, it is also worth pointing out that "to know" in biblical texts refers to experiential knowledge.

Now, my point here is that the fruit wasn't what was evil. What made it evil is that God commanded it so. The question was about obeying or disobeying God.

I believe the same is true of the ToL. The fruit, in and of itself, has no power of life. It has life in it only because God so decreed it, and God so decreed it as a means of fellowship with Man. Thus, to be expelled from the Garden of Eden was actually to be expelled from the ToL, and thus to be removed from fellowship with God. That, as it happens, is the means by which man died. Just as a flower dies the moment it is plucked from the ground and yet it takes several days for the decay to set in, so with man, the moment he was expelled from God's presence died, and yet it takes time for the decay to set in.

SO - bottom line here: God intended for man to live forever in His presence, depended on and in fellowship with Him, but He also gave man the ability to reject that fellowship and thus, like everything else imperfect, the ability to die.

If mans intent was to eventually return to the ground, then where exactly does the idea of the soul come in, if man is said to come from the ground, and doesnt this seem to cause issues for the supposed afterlife?

As should be clear from above, God did not intend for people to die, thus, there was no intention of a separation of body and soul. With that, however, let me point out that there are two major schools of thought in Christian circles regarding the soul, both of which are represented on these boards. The one school is called substance dualism. It is, you could say, the popular view, in which the soul is considered a separate thing that resides in and controls the body. When the body dies, the soul goes to be with God. The second view is called composite dualism, to which I adhere. Under this view, the soul is not a separate thing from the body, but rather an integrated whole with it. In philosohical terms, the soul is to the body what form is to matter.

I'll leave it to a substance dualist to explain your question from their perspective, but as for me, I'll simply say that when God created human beings, he created them as a single substance--a body/soul composite--that was never intended to be, and in the strictest sense cannot be, separated. When a person dies, their soul (form--that is, what they are) is given a temporary body in paradise (or, if they are unsaved, in Hell), until they receive their permanent bodies back at the Resurrection.

oh and I think there was a quote along the lines of, my spirit wont stay with men forever, for they are mortal.

You are talking about Genesis 6:3, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years" (NIV). The key word here is "contend." The idea is not "stay," but rather, "fight with." Mankind had become utterly evil by that point in history. They were no longer listening to the Spirit, and thus, God said He would not try to convict them forever. He could not, as eventually, people would die, and a new, just as evil, generation, would just take their place. God could convict them only until they died, which, He was saying, would not be enough time. Thus, God gave them 120 years to repent. He then gave them Noah as a "preacher of righteousness" to give them a fair chance to avoid judgment. When they did not, after 120 years, God sent the Flood and destroyed them.

So, I hope this has helped, and do consider the reading outline I suggested in my first reply.

God bless!

edit: Thanks, Zoe. I actually went through that very thing last night with a friend of mine. I use the outlines as a teaching tool when I do a general lesson on the Bible as a whole. People usually find it pretty helpful.

[Proinsias]

Well, General, you jumped right into the deep end, didn't you?

I'll suggest an answer to each of your three questions, but first, a piece of unsolicited advice, if I may. Rather than focusing reading the entire Bible through in a year, focus on reading the narrative portions of the Bible. The reason is that the Bible, fundamentally, is a book of history. More specifically, it is a history of Israel and their relationship with God. All the theology in the book comes out of that, not vice versa. If, then, you understand the story, you will be better able to answer some of the types of questions you are asking now.

This is important, because what will happen otherwise is you will get to Ex. 20 and all the law literature you find there. Leviticus is next, with nothing but laws. Numbers is half law, half narrative, and Deuteronomy is the same. In short, it's about as interesting reading as your cable TV contract. It's certainly very, very important, and you need, eventually, to understand it. But it's not a story. In fact, the law portions presuppose a knowledge of the story, so it makes much more sense for you to learn that part now.

The same will happen with the Wisdom books (Job-SoS) and the Prophets (Isaiah-Malachi, less Daniel). All of those have very little narrative. Each of the presupposes the general story. Here, then, is the breakdown I would suggest, if you just want to get right at the biblical story as a whole:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis
Exodus 1:1-20:21; 23:20-24:15; 32-34
Numbers 1:1-19, 47-54; 9; 10:11-13, 29-36; 11-14; 15:32-36; 16-17; 20:1-26:4, 63-65; 27; 31:1-31; 32:1-34:15; 36
Deuteronomy 34
Joshua - Esther
Daniel 1-6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a genearl outline you can follow that is based on the main characters you will meet:

Antediluvian Age (“Before the Flood”): Gen. 1-11
Adam
Noah

Patriarchal Age: Gen. 12-50
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob (Israel)
Joseph

Journey to the Promised Land: Ex. 1-Deut. 34
Moses

Pre-Monarchial Kingdom: Josh. 1-7:17
Joshua
Various judges -> Samuel

The Monarchy (Pre-Exilic Kingdom): 1 Sam 8-2 Chron. 36
Saul
David
Solomon
Various kings (Northern Kingdom/Israel and Southern Kingdom/Judah)

The Exile: Daniel and various prophets
Daniel

Post-Exilic Kingdom: Ezra-Esther
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
John the Baptist
Jesus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, I would recomment one last breakdown to keep in mind. The theology of the Bible, as noted above, comes from its narrative. The narrative is guided by the establishment, expansion, and fulfillment of a series of covenants. It is very helpful to have a good overview of these covenants so you know what to look for. They are:

Genesis 1 - Universal Kingship - God king over all creation (note hb. Elohim, trans. “God” = “Strong One”, emphasizing God's omnipotence)

Genesis 2 - Relationtional Kingship - God king through humanity (note hb. Yahweh, trans. “LORD” = “I am”, emphasizing God's personalism)

Genesis 3 - The Fall; “Universal Kingdom” and “Relational Kingdom” broken. Gen. 3:15, “the first giving of the Gospel” = God's desire to restore the kingdoms.

Gen 12:1-3; 15:17-21; 17:1-8 - Abrahamic Covenant: God promises to make a nation on earth through Abraham through which He will restore kingdoms.

Deut 29:1-30:10 - Palestinian Covenant: God promises Israel Palestine, blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience

Exodus 19-24 - Mosaic (Sinaitic Covenant): Temporary and conditional covenant commonly referred to as “the Law.”

2 Sam 7:1-13 - Davidic Covenant: God promises David that his line would always rule over Israel; see also 1 Chron. 17:11-14 and 2 Chron. 6:16.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - New Covenant: God promises Israel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a perfect relationship with Him. Inaugurated by Christ in Luke 22:20, will be finally fulfilled in the future earthly Kingdom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK - I know you didn't ask for all that, and I'll save you the boredom of reading my summation of the whole thing. This should be enough to give you a good background if you want to read through the Bible. You can, obviously, read it cover-to-cover if you like, but I'm just saying that it has been my experience that you won't gain as much that way as you would following the method I've suggested here.

So - I'm going to post this now. Next post, I'll answer your specific questions.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for Jac. I've dipped into the bible over the years but probably read more commentary than verse. This seems like a great breakdown for getting a better understanding than just throwing myself in at random points or working through page at a time.

Sorry to hijack the thread a little but can I ask what versions are recommended? I've been told elsewhere the NRSV is a good bet and been told elsewhere again the Oxford Bible Commentary or the New Jerome Bible Commentary may be good companions. Thoughts?

[zoegirl]

I like both the NIV or New American Standard

[Byblos]

I like both the NIV or New American Standard

I'm in the middle of reading the NIV now, I like it too. I did start reading it straight through but then stopped after Kings to read the NT before Easter. Now I'm about to start Ezra.

[Jac3510]

The NIV is probably the best reading translation. That or the NLT. I wouldn't use either for in depth study (unless you are doing translation work yourself, in which they can be very helpful when working out syntax issues), but if someone is just trying to get a good idea of the narrative, I highly recommend the two of them.

For a more detailed, exegetical study, I recommend the NASB and NKJV. They are from a different text base, so you can deal with common varients without having to get into textual criticism, but both are formal equivalents, which means your word studies can be more precise. Add to that a good expository dictionary, and you are good to go.

[Proinsias]

Good stuff.

I'll have a hunt around some local charity shops, I'm quite shallow in that I would like to find a bible that is not only a good version for understanding but also aesthetically and ergonomically appealing.

I was informed recently by a gentleman I know in Maryland, who sells the best straight razor strops in the world on the very slim chance there are any traditional wetshavers around, that the finest Bibles available are the ones made by R L Allan & Son of Glasgow. That just happens to be my home city. I think I may have to save a little before I splash out there though.

[zoegirl]

WEll, there is something to be said about a Bible that will last....but there are some pretty good ones in any standard CHrsitian book store or even regular bookstores (or even Walmart)

[Proinsias]

I just noticed after my last post that you are from Maryland, it really is a small world.

[GeneralD]

Well, General, you jumped right into the deep end, didn't you?.....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK - I know you didn't ask for all that, and I'll save you the boredom of reading my summation of the whole thing. This should be enough to give you a good background if you want to read through the Bible. You can, obviously, read it cover-to-cover if you like, but I'm just saying that it has been my experience that you won't gain as much that way as you would following the method I've suggested here.

So - I'm going to post this now. Next post, I'll answer your specific questions.

Superb. That's excellent, am, somewhat flabbergasted at how helpful everyone is here (especially yourself), I wish I had more time to spend on here with you all. Thanks very much for the breakdown, I completed Genesis, and found myself, thinking it was yet another one of my schemes that will end in tears (as in not finishing :/). I'll go through your break down instead, I was hoping for someone to comment something like that actually; something tells me my girlfriend wouldn't be so keen on me disappearing into my study for a whole year lol.

I was wondering though jac, what your thoughts are on the topic I first posted, and indeed the main reason I registered on here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33350

To do with blasphemy of the holy spirit, am still, not quite at ease about it if am honest, and as am sure you can all appreciate, I don't, really see the point in coming into the family so to speak, if I am going to be dammed like that, so thoughts would be appreciated. Someone mentioned it wasn't really possible for a genuine Christian to commit it, but, truth be told, am a young guy, I was raised catholic and only in the last year, did I start to give this topic any real thought, so I don't think I could lay any claim to being a ''real'' Christian.

Many thanks,

Martyn

[Byblos]

I was wondering though jac, what your thoughts are on the topic I first posted, and indeed the main reason I registered on here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33350

To do with blasphemy of the holy spirit, am still, not quite at ease about it if am honest, and as am sure you can all appreciate, I don't, really see the point in coming into the family so to speak, if I am going to be dammed like that, so thoughts would be appreciated. Someone mentioned it wasn't really possible for a genuine Christian to commit it, but, truth be told, am a young guy, I was raised catholic and only in the last year, did I start to give this topic any real thought, so I don't think I could lay any claim to being a ''real'' Christian.

Many thanks,

Martyn

We've covered this topic many times here but I find it is one of the most contentious, most misunderstood verses ever. I know Jac has his own take on it but I don't suspect the end result is any different than mine or any other orthodox Christian, that being that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the total, conscious, and systemic rejection of Christ. As long as you are alive you always have the opportunity to make it right with God and not have to worry about it. It is sealed after death, not before.



P.S. I am Catholic too .